The distortion of the labor/leisure choice by social security during the period the earnings test is in effect is well known. This paper, using a life-cycle asset maximization approach to social security acceptance, shows that the earnings test is not a sufficient cause for such a distortion in the constrained period or over the life cycle. We use time-series analysis to test the net empirical importance of the substitution and wealth effects associated with social security on the market work of younger men and find that hours worked per week would have fallen from 2 to 3 hours since 1936 without the present social security system. Such findings suggest that large savings effects associated with social security are over-estimates.

The distortion of the labor/leisure choice by social security during the period the earnings test is in effect is well known. This paper, using a life-cycle asset maximization approach to social security acceptance, shows that the earnings test is not a sufficient cause for such a distortion in the constrained period or over the life cycle. We use time-series analysis to test the net empirical importance of the substitution and wealth effects associated with social security on the market work of younger men and find that hours worked per week would have fallen from 2 to 3 hours since 1936 without the present social security system. Such findings suggest that large savings effects associated with social security are over-estimates.